Blog

F-2018-383

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

Samantha Ann Perales v State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-383

Filed: Aug. 12, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Samantha Ann Perales

Summary

Samantha Ann Perales appealed her conviction for first-degree manslaughter. Her conviction included other crimes, leading to a life sentence for manslaughter and additional sentences for the other charges. Perales argued that the court did not have the right to try her because she is a member of the Osage Nation and the crimes happened in the Cherokee Nation’s reservation area. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Perales. They found that she had enough Native American blood and was a recognized member of a tribe when the crimes occurred in Indian Country, which means state courts do not have the power to prosecute her. The court reversed her convictions and sent the case back to the lower court to dismiss the charges against her, citing the need for clarity on jurisdiction based on new legal standards. Judge Rowland dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the state should still have jurisdiction to prosecute Perales because the federal government cannot prosecute her due to a statute of limitations on federal crimes. He felt that dismissing her case could leave serious crimes unpunished. Overall, Perales appealed her conviction for first-degree manslaughter. Conviction and sentence were reversed. Judge Rowland dissented.

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court of Delaware County are REVERSED and the case is REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2021), the MANDATE is STAYED for twenty (20) days from the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

  • Was there a jurisdictional issue regarding whether the District Court had the authority to try Perales given her status as a member of the Osage Nation and the location of the crimes in the Cherokee Nation Reservation?
  • Did the District Court correctly find that the crimes occurred in Indian Country, thus affecting the State's jurisdiction to prosecute Perales?
  • Was Perales able to establish her status as an Indian for the purpose of jurisdiction under the relevant laws and precedents?
  • Did the District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law support the conclusion that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Perales for the crimes charged?
  • Did the previous decisions in McGirt v. Oklahoma and its affirmations impact the legal analysis in this case?

Findings

  • the court erred in asserting state jurisdiction over the prosecution
  • the court found that Perales was an Indian and the crimes occurred in Indian Country
  • the judgments and sentences were reversed and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss

F-2018-383

Aug. 12, 2021

Samantha Ann Perales

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, JUDGE: Samantha Ann Perales, Appellant, was tried and convicted of Count 1, first degree manslaughter, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711; Count 2, possession of controlled dangerous substance- methamphetamine, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402; Count 3, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of 63 O.S.2011, § 2-405; and Count 4, no valid driver’s license, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 6-303, in Delaware County District Court, Case No. CF-2015-355. The Honorable Barry V. Denney, District Judge, presided at Perales’ jury trial and sentenced her to life imprisonment on Count 1, ten (10) years imprisonment on Count 2, one (1) year imprisonment on Count 3, and thirty (30) days on Count 4. Perales must serve 85% of her sentence in Count 1 before being eligible for consideration for parole. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1 (3). Judge Denney ordered the sentences to be served concurrently, gave credit for time served, and imposed various fees and costs. Perales filed an appeal from the Judgments and Sentences raising four propositions of error. We find that the claim raised in her first proposition entitles Perales to relief, thus the remaining propositions are moot.

In her first proposition, Perales claims the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try her. Perales argues that she is a citizen of the Osage Nation and the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Cherokee Nation Reservation. Perales, in her direct appeal, relies on Murphy v. Royal, 875 F.3d 896 (10th Cir. 2017), which was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S., 140 S.Ct. 2412 (2020), for the reasons stated in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S., 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020).

Perales’ claim raises two separate questions: (a) her Indian status and (b) whether the crime occurred in Indian Country. This Court remanded the case back to the district court because we determined that her claim required fact-finding on the two separate questions. Recognizing the historical and specialized nature of this remand for evidentiary hearing, we requested the Attorney General and District Attorney work together to effect uniformity and completeness in the hearing process.

Upon Perales’ presentation of prima facie evidence as to her legal status as an Indian and as to the location of the crimes in Indian Country, the burden shifts to the State to prove it has subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court was ordered to determine whether Perales has some Indian blood and is recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the federal government. The District Court was also directed to determine whether the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The District Court was directed to follow the analysis set out in McGirt to determine: (1) whether Congress established a reservation for the Cherokee Nation; and (2) if so, whether Congress specifically erased those boundaries and disestablished the reservation. In so doing, the District Court was directed to consider any evidence the parties provided, including but not limited to treaties, statutes, maps, and/or testimony.

We also directed the District Court that in the event the parties agreed as to what the evidence would show with regard to the questions presented, the parties may enter into a written stipulation setting forth those facts upon which they agree and which answer the questions presented and provide the stipulation to the District Court. The District Court was also ordered to file written findings of fact and conclusions of law with this Court.

An evidentiary hearing was timely held before the Honorable Barry Denney, District Judge, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were timely filed with this Court. The record indicates that appearing before the District Court were attorneys from the Delaware County District Attorney’s office, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office, the Attorney General’s office of the Cherokee Nation, and the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System. In its Findings of Fact, the District Court found:

1. Perales has 1/8 Osage blood and was a member of the Osage Nation at the time of the crimes. The Osage Nation is an Indian Tribal Entity recognized by the federal government.
2. The crimes occurred in Delaware County, Oklahoma, and the location of the crimes falls within the geographic area set out by the Treaties with the Cherokee Nation. Through the treaties, Congress established a reservation for the Cherokee Nation. Congress has not erased the boundaries of the reservation described.

Based on the evidence presented, the trial court concluded, The State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute and try Ms. Perales for the crimes charged since they were committed in Indian Country by an Indian. We find that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record. The parties stipulated that Perales was indeed a member of the Osage Nation at the time of the crimes and the location of the crimes was within the geographic area of the historical boundaries of the Cherokee Nation Reservation. Exhibits supporting the stipulations were offered by Perales and the Cherokee Nation. The exhibits were admitted by the trial court without objection by the State. The State, in its argument, made clear that it did not take a position on Perales’ status as an Indian for the purposes of the law. The State also announced it held no position as to whether or not the reservation for the Cherokee Nation existed at the time of the crimes.

The Delaware County District Attorney argued that years of jurisprudence have been undone and the McGirt decision does not serve justice. The District Attorney noted that the federal statute of limitations for manslaughter, Perales’ crime, is five years. Her crimes occurred on April 12, 2015. On the hearing date, October 14, 2020, the federal government was outside the statute of limitations. He argued that Perales potentially escapes justice. Perales’ counsel reminded Judge Denney that his was a Court of law and not one of equity. He argued that the issues were answered and Perales is an Indian and her crimes occurred in Indian Country. He pointed out that no evidence was presented to show that the Cherokee Reservation was disestablished.

The parties were given the opportunity to file response briefs addressing issues from the evidentiary hearing. Their briefs mirrored their arguments at the hearing and the stipulations and evidence presented at the trial court. The State asks that the mandate be stayed for thirty (30) days to ensure that the proper authorities may secure custody of Perales. See 22 O.S.2011, § 846.

Based on the record before us, we find that the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law is supported by the entire record. We find, therefore, that Perales has met her burden of establishing her status as an Indian as having 1/8 degree of Indian blood and being a member of the Osage Tribe at the time of the crimes. We also find that the trial court’s finding that the crimes occurred within the historical boundaries of the reservation set aside for the Cherokee Nation is supported by the record. This Court has previously held that the Cherokee Nation was granted a reservation in Oklahoma and that reservation has not been disestablished by Congress. Spears v. State, 2021 OK CR 7; Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4.

We therefore find that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Perales in this matter. The Judgments and Sentences in this case are hereby reversed and the case remanded to the District Court of Delaware County with instructions to dismiss.

DECISION

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court of Delaware County are REVERSED and the case is REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2021), the MANDATE is STAYED for twenty (20) days from the delivery and filing of this decision.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY
THE HONORABLE BARRY V. DENNEY, DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

LEE GRIFFIN
P.O. BOX 367
JAY, OK 74346
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

KENNETH E. WRIGHT, III
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
DELAWARE COUNTY
JAY, OK 74346
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE

MIKE HUNTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
KATHERINE R. MORELLI
RANDAL YOUNG
ASHLEY L. WILLIS
ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
313 E. 21ST ST.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73015
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: LEWIS, J.

ROWLAND, P.J.: Dissent
HUDSON, V.P.J.: Concur in Results
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results
KUEHN, J.: Concur in Results

< br>
Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

  1. 21 O.S.2011, § 711
  2. 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402
  3. 63 O.S.2011, § 2-405
  4. 47 O.S.2011, § 6-303
  5. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1 (3)
  6. 22 O.S.2011, § 846
  7. Okla. Const. art. I, § 3
  8. Goforth U. State, 1982 OK CR 48, II 6-9, 644 P.2d 114, 116-17
  9. Parker v. State, 2021 OK CR 17, II 32, P.3d
  10. Spears v. State, 2021 OK CR 7, "I 15, P.3d
  11. Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, IT 18, P.3d
  12. McGirt U. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
  13. United States U. Cuch, 79 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 1996)
  14. United States U. John, 437 U.S. 634, 651 (1978)
  15. United States v. Norquay, 905 F.2d 1157, 1161 (8th Cir. 1990)
  16. Keeble U. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 209-12 (1973)
  17. United States U. Begay, 42 F.3d 486, 498 (9th Cir. 1994)
  18. United States U. Pluff, 253 F.3d 490, 494 (9th Cir. 2001)
  19. United States U. Jones, 921 F.3d 932, 935 (10th Cir. 2019)
  20. Currey U. Corporation Commission, 617 P.2d 177 (Okl. 1979)
  21. Benge v. United States, 17 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 1994)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711 - First Degree Manslaughter
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 - Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-405 - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-303 - No Valid Driver's License
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 - Parole Eligibility
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 846 - Mandate and Stay of Proceedings

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

  • Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
  • Murphy v. Royal, 875 F.3d 896 (10th Cir. 2017)
  • Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S., 140 S.Ct. 2412 (2020)
  • McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S., 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020)
  • Spears v. State, 2021 OK CR 7, P.3d
  • Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d
  • Parker v. State, 2021 OK CR 17, P.3d
  • Goforth v. State, 1982 OK CR 48, 644 P.2d 114
  • United States v. Norquay, 905 F.2d 1157 (8th Cir. 1990)
  • United States v. Jones, 921 F.3d 932 (10th Cir. 2019)
  • Currey v. Corporation Commission, 617 P.2d 177 (Okl.1979)
  • Benge v. United States, 17 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 1994)
  • United States v. Cuch, 79 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 1996)
  • Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (1973)
  • United States v. Begay, 42 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 1994)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,